U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Birding in theUnitedStates:
ADemographicand
EconomicAnalysis
Addendum to the 2001National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-1
Genevieve Pullis La Rouche
Division of Federal Aid
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, D.C.
Division of Federal Aid
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
Director, Steve Williams
Chief, Division of Federal Aid, Kris La Montagne
http://fa.r9.fws.gov/
This report is intended to complement the National and State Reports for the
2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
The report’s opinions are the author’s and do not represent official positions of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The author thanks Sylvia Cabrera, Richard Aiken, Grant La Rouche,
John Charbonneau and Jim Caudill for reviewing earlier drafts of this report.
Birding in theUnitedStates:
ADemographicand
EconomicAnalysis
Addendum to the 2001National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-1
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
Introduction
In January 2002 an unprecedented major
media event unfolded in a Louisiana
swamp. A team of top ornithologists set
out to find the ivory-billed woodpecker, a
bird last seen in the United States in 1943
and, until a recent credible citing by a
turkey hunter, considered extinct in the
U.S. The expedition, funded by a
corporate sponsor, received worldwide
media attention including coverage by
the New York Times, USA Today, and
National Public Radio.
This high-profile search for the ivory-billed
woodpecker is just one indicator of
the growing popularization of birds and
birding. Other evidence abounds. A field
guide, Sibley’s Guide to Birds, became a
New York Times bestseller. And a quick
search of the Internet yields numerous
birding sites, some of which list hundreds
of birding festivals held around the
country each year.
This growing awareness of birding comes
at an odd time; birds are in jeopardy.
According to 35-year trend data (1966-
2001) from the U. S. Geological Service,
almost one-in-four bird species in the
United States show “significant negative
trend estimates” (Sauer et al. 2003).
This decline is attributed primarily to
the degradation and destruction of
habitat resulting from human population
growth and short-sighted environmental
practices such as the razing of wetlands
“For me, the thrill of bird-watching
is catching the glimpse of alien
consciousness—the uninflected,
murderous eye, the aura of reptilian
toughness under the beautiful soft
feathers, the knowledge that if I
were the size of a sparrow, and a
sparrow were as big as I am, it
might ripmyhead off without a
second’s hesitation.”
Jonathan Rosen. The Ghost Bird.
The New Yorker. 5/14/01.
American Kestral (Falco sparverius) by Dave Menke, USFWS
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 3
needed by migratory birds. Although
there is a certain irony in people
becoming enthusiastic about birds
as they disappear, it also presents
an opportunity: birders may be the
economic and political force that can
help save the birds.
The following report provides up-to-date
information so birders and policy makers
can make informed decisions regarding
the protection of birds and their habitats.
This report identifies who birders are,
where they live, how avid they are, where
they bird and what kinds of birds they
watch. In addition to demographic
information, this report also provides two
kinds of economic measures. The first is
an estimate of how much birders spend
on their hobby and the economic impact
of these expenditures. The second is the
net economic value of birding, that is, the
value of birding to society.
By understanding who birders are,
they can be more easily educated about
pressures facing birds and bird habitats.
Conversely, by knowing who is likely not
a birder, or who is potentially a birder,
information can be more effectively
tailored. The economic values presented
here can be used by resource managers
and policy makers to demonstrate the
economic might of birders, the value of
birding — and by extension, the value of
birds. In fact, research shows that these
kinds of values help wildlife managers
make better decisions and illustrate the
value of wildlife to American society
(Loomis 2000).
All data presented here is from the
wildlife-watching section of the 2001
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
(FHWAR). It is the most comprehensive
survey of wildlife recreation in the U.S.
Overall, 15,300 detailed wildlife-watching
interviews were completed with a
response rate of 90 percent. The Survey
focused on 2001 participation and
expenditures by U.S. residents 16 years
of age and older.
Birding Trends
Is birding increasing? Despite recent
popularization (high visibility within
the media and popular culture and
increased recognition of the sport
within American homes) of birding,
past FHWAR Survey results point to a
more complicated story. A comparison
of results from the 1991, 1996, and 2001
estimates show that bird-watching
around the home has decreased rather
than increased over that 10-year period
(USFWS). In 1991, 51.3 million people
reported observing birds around their
homes. In 1996 that number dropped to
42.2 million and in 2001 to 40.3 million.
Because the 2001 Survey is the first
time people were asked if they
specifically watched birds on trips
away from home, it cannot be said
conclusively if this activity increased or
decreased. However, in all three
Surveys, people were asked if they
observed, fed, or photographed birds
away from home. These numbers
indicate a net decrease in away-from-home
birding from 24.7 million in 1991
to 18.5 million in 2001 but a slight
uptick from 1996 (17.7 million) to 2001.
Jim Hudgins, USFWS
In 2001 there were 46 million bird-watchers
or birders, 16 years of age
and older, in the United States ��� a little
over one in five people. What is a birder?
The National Survey uses a conservative
definition. To be counted as a birder, an
individual must have either taken a trip a
mile or more from home for the primary
purpose of observing birds and/or closely
observed or tried to identify birds around
the home. So people who happened to
notice birds while they were mowing the
lawn or picnicking at the beach were not
counted as birders. Trips to zoos and
observing captive birds also did not
count.
Backyard birding or watching birds
around the home is the most common
form of bird-watching. Eighty-eight
percent (40 million) of birders are
backyard birders. The more active
form of birding, taking trips away from
home, is less common with 40 percent
(18 million) of birders partaking.
4 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
Birders
Chart 1. Birders in the United States: 2001
(16 years of age and older.)
Total Birders 46 million
Around-the-home 40 million
Away-from-home 18 million
Red-winged Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) by John and Karen Hollingsworth, USFWS
The average birder is 49 years old and
more than likely has a better than
average income and education. She is
slightly more likely to be female, and
highly likely to be white and married.
There is also a good chance that this
birder lives in the northern half of the
country in a small city or town. Does this
paint an accurate picture of a birder?
Like all generalizations the description of
an “average” birder does not reflect the
variety of people who bird, with millions
falling outside this box. The tables and
charts show in numbers and participation
rates (the percentage of people who
participate) birders by various
demographic breakdowns.
The tendency of birders to be middle-age
or older is reflected in both the number of
birders and participation rates. Looking
at the different age breakdowns in Table 1,
the greatest number of birders were in
the 35 to 44 and 45 to 54 age groups.
People age 55 to 64 had the highest
participation rates while the participation
rate was particularly low for people ages
18 to 24. Birders who take trips away
from home to pursue their hobby were on
average slightly younger at 45 years old
compared to backyard birders who were
on average 50 years old.
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 5
Table 1. Age Distribution of the U.S. Population and Birders: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
U.S. Number Participation
Age Population of Birders Rate
16 and 17 7,709 1,043 14%
18 to 24 22,234 1,894 9%
25 to 34 35,333 5,990 17%
35 to 44 44,057 10,414 24%
45 to 54 40,541 10,541 26%
55 to 64 25,601 7,177 28%
65 plus 36,823 8,893 24%
Chart 2. Birders’ Participation Rate by Age
U.S. Average: 22% ▼
16 and 17 14%
18 to 24 9%–
25 to 34 17%
35 to 44 24%
45 to 54 26%
55 to 64 28%
65 plus 24%
Tina Watson, USFWS
The higher the income and education
level the more likely a person is to be a
birder. Twenty-seven percent of people
who live in households that earn $75,000
or more were bird-watchers — 5 percent
above the national average of 22 percent.
Education, which is often highly
correlated with income, shows the same
trend. People with less than high school
education participated at 14 percent —
far below the national average — while
people with five or more years of college
had the highest participation rate at
33 percent. See Tables 2 and 3 for more
information.
6 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
Table 2. Income Distribution of the U.S. Population and Birders: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
U.S. Number Participation
Income Population of Birders Rate
Less than $10,000 10,594 2,212 21%
$10,000 to $19,000 15,272 2,754 18%
$20,000 to $24,000 10,902 2,335 21%
$25,000 to $29,000 11,217 2,392 21%
$30,000 to $34,000 11,648 2,618 22%
$35,000 to $39,000 9,816 2,005 20%
$40,000 to $49,000 16,896 4,116 24%
$50,000 to $74,000 31,383 7,476 24%
$75,000 to $99,000 17,762 4,771 27%
$100,000 or more 19,202 5,224 27%
Detail does not add to total due to non-response.
Chart 3. Birders’ Participation Rate by Income
U.S. Average: 22% ▼
Less than $10,000 21%
$10,000 to $19,000 18%
$20,000 to $24,000 21%
$25,000 to $29,000 21%
$30,000 to $34,000 22%
$35,000 to $39,000 20%
$40,000 to $49,000 24%
$50,000 to $74,000 24%
$75,000 to $99,000 27%
$100,000 or more 27%
Table 3. Educational Distribution of the U.S. Population and Birders: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
U.S. Number Participation
Population of Birders Rate
11 years or less 32,820 4,627 14%
12 years 73,719 13,933 19%
1 to 3 years college 49,491 11,363 23%
4 years college 34,803 8,922 26%
5 years or more college 21,646 7,107 33%
Chart 4. Birders’ Participation Rate by Education
U.S. Average: 22% ▼
11 years or less 14%
12 years 19%
1 to 3 years college 23%
4 years college 26%
5 years or more college 33%
Unlike hunting and fishing where men
were overwhelmingly in the majority, a
slightly larger percent of birders were
women — 54 percent in 2001. And most
birders, 72 percent, were married.
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 7
Chart 5. Percent of Birders — by Gender
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Chart 6. Percent of Birders — by Marital Status
72% Married
54% Female
Widowed 7%
Divorced/separated 9%
Never married 13%
Male 46%
Tami Heilemann, DOI
Excepting Native American participation,
birders are not a racially or ethnically
diverse group. Ninety-four percent of
birders identified themselves as white.
The scarcity of minority birders is not
just a reflection of their relatively low
numbers in the population at large, it’s
also a function of low participation rates.
The participation rates of African-
Americans, Asians, and Hispanics were
all 9 percent or lower while the rate for
whites, 24 percent, was slightly above the
22 percent national average. Native
Americans on the other hand had a
participation rate (22 percent) on par
with the national average.
The sparser populated an area, the more
likely its residents were to watch birds.
The participation rate for people living in
small cities and rural areas was 28
percent — 6 percent above the national
average. Whereas large metropolitan
areas (1 million residents or more) had
the greatest number of birders, their
residents had the lowest participation
rate, 18 percent. See Table 5.
8 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
Table 4. Racial and Ethnic Distribution of the U.S. Population and Birders: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
U.S. Number Participation
Population of Birders Rate
Hispanic 21,910 1,880 9%
White 181,129 43,026 24%
African American 21,708 1,243 6%
Native American 1,486 321 22%
Asian 7,141 436 6%
Other 833 55 7%
Chart 7. Birders’ Participation Rate by Race and Ethnicity
U.S. Average: 22% ▼
Hispanic 9%–
White 24%
African American 6%–
Native American 22%
Asian 6%–
Other 7%–
Table 5. Percent of U.S. Population Who Birded by Residence: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Metropolitan U.S. Number Participation
Statistical Area (MSA) Population of Birders Rate
1,000,000 or more 112,984 20,868 18%
250,000 to 999,999 41,469 8,991 22%
50,000 to 249,000 16,693 4,622 28%
Outside MSA 41,151 11,470 28%
Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotaria citrea) by
John and Karen Hollingsworth, USFWS
When measured in terms of the percent
of state residents participating, states in
the northern half of the United States
generally had higher levels of
participation than did states in the
southern half. While 44 percent of
Montanans and 43 percent of Vermonters
watched birds, only 14 percent of
Californians and Texans did. See Chart 8.
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 9
Chart 8. Birding Participation Rates by State Residents: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older)
U.S. Average: 22% ▼
Montana 44%
Vermont 43%
Wisconsin 41%
Washington 36%
Minnesota 36%
Maine 36%
Alaska 36%
Kentucky 35%
Oregon 35%
New Hampshire 34%
Wyoming 34%
Iowa 34%
South Dakota 33%
Idaho 29%
Indiana 29%
New Mexico 28%
Virginia 28%
Utah 27%
Oklahoma 27%
Pennsylvania 27%
Missouri 26%
Colorado 25%
Tennessee 25%
Nebraska 25%
Connecticut 25%
West Virginia 24%
Arkansas 24%
Kansas 24%
Michigan 23%
Maryland 22%
Arizona 22%
Massachusetts 22%
South Carolina 20%
Ohio 20%
Rhode Island 19%
North Carolina 18%
Illinois 18%
New Jersey 18%
Delaware 18%
Mississippi 18%
Alabama 18%
North Dakota 17%
New York 17%
Florida 16%
Louisiana 16%
Georgia 15%
Nevada 15%
Texas 14%
California 14%
Hawaii 9%–
Jim Hudgins, USFWS
The participation rate was highest (30%)
in the West North Central region of the
United States (see Figure 1). The New
England states had the second highest
participation rate at 27 percent with a
close third going to the Rocky Mountain
states (26 percent). The West South
Central states had the lowest rate of
17 percent while the Pacific and South
Atlantic states yielded slightly higher
rates, both 19 percent. However, in terms
of sheer numbers, the Pacific and South
Atlantic states had the most resident
birders — 7 million and 8 million
respectively, while New England had
the least, 3 million.
10 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
Figure 1. Birders’ Participation Rates by Region of Residence: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
West
Mountain
26%
West
North Central
30%
West
South
Central
17%
East
South
Central
22%
South
Atlantic
19%
East
North Central
24%
Middle
Atlantic
21%
New
England
27%
Pacific
19%
Midwest
South
Northeast
Alaska
Washington
Idaho
Oregon
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Utah
Arizona
New Mexico
Colorado
Wyoming
Montana
North
Dakota Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin
Ohio
Kentucky
Virginia
Tennessee
Georgia
Illinois
Missouri
South
Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma Arkansas
Texas
Alabama
Indiana
Louisiana
Mississippi
South
Carolina
North Carolina
Florida
West Virginia
Delaware
New Jersey
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Vermont
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Maine
New York
Michigan
U.S. 22%
Bird watching by state residents tells
only part of the story. Many people travel
out-of-state to watch birds and some
states are natural birding destinations.
Wyoming reaped the benefits of this
tourism with a whopping 67 percent of
their total birders coming from other
states. The scenic northern states of
New Hampshire, Vermont, Montana,
and Alaska also attracted many
birders — all had more than 40 percent
of their total birders coming from
other states.
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 11
Table 6. Birding by State Residents and Nonresidents: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Total Percent Percent
State Birders State Residents Nonresidents
Alabama 703 90 10
Alaska 321 51 49
Arizona 1,168 70 30
Arkansas 548 88 12
California 3,987 91 9
Colorado 1,077 74 26
Connecticut 732 88 12
Delaware 172 63 37
Florida 2,363 80 20
Georgia 1,063 84 16
Hawaii 164 48 52
Idaho 478 60 40
Illinois 1,815 90 10
Indiana 1,423 94 6
Iowa 813 93 7
Kansas 569 87 13
Kentucky 803 91 9
Louisiana 608 86 14
Maine 595 61 39
Maryland 1,068 82 18
Massachusetts 1,263 86 14
Michigan 1,961 88 12
Minnesota 1,471 90 10
Mississippi 437 88 12
Missouri 1,299 85 15
Montana 558 55 45
Nebraska 386 83 17
Nevada 343 63 37
New Hampshire 569 57 43
New Jersey 1,335 85 15
New Mexico 531 70 30
New York 2,802 88 12
North Carolina 1,296 80 20
North Dakota 134 60 40
Ohio 1,899 93 7
Oklahoma 760 91 9
Oregon 1,187 77 23
Pennsylvania 2,721 91 10
Rhode Island 193 76 25
South Carolina 742 84 16
South Dakota 271 68 32
Tennessee 1,420 76 24
Texas 2,268 94 6
Utah 616 67 33
Vermont 383 53 47
Virginia 1,818 86 14
Washington 1,877 86 14
West Virginia 428 80 20
Wisconsin 1,944 86 14
Wyoming 388 33 67
Where and What Are They Watching?
Backyard birding is the most prevalent
form of birding with 88 percent of
participants watching birds from the
comfort of their homes. Forty percent of
birders travel more than a mile from
home to bird, visiting a variety of habitats
on both private and public lands.
Of the 18 million Americans who ventured
away from home to watch birds, public
land rather than private land was visited
more frequently, although many visited
both. Eighty-three percent of birders
used public land such as parks and
wildlife refuges, 42 percent used private
land, and 31 percent visited both. See
Chart 9.
The most popular setting to observe
birds was in the woods (73%), followed by
lakes and streamside areas (69%) and
brush-covered areas and fields (62% and
61%). Less popular sites were the ocean
(27%) and manmade areas (31%) such as
golf courses and cemeteries. See Table 7.
What kinds of birds are they looking at?
Seventy-eight percent reported
observing waterfowl, making them the
most spied on type of bird. Songbirds
were also popular with 70 percent of
birders watching them, followed in
popularity by birds of prey (68%) and
other water birds such as herons and
shorebirds (56%). See Chart 10.
12 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
Table 7. Sites Visited by Away-From-Home Birders: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Number
of Birders Percent
Total, all birders 18,342 100
Woodland 13,405 73
Lake and Streamside 12,615 69
Brush-covered areas 11,324 62
Open field 11,184 61
Marsh, wetland, swamp 8,632 47
Man-made area 5,770 31
Oceanside 4,921 27
Other 2,418 13
* Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses.
Chart 9. Percent of Away-From-Home Birders — by Public and Private Land Visited
Total, all birders 100
Private Land 42–
Public Land 83–
Both Public and Private 31–
Chart 10. Percent of Away-From-Home Birders — by Type of Birds Observed
Total, all birders 100
Waterfowl 78–
Songbirds 70–
Birds of prey 68–
Other water birds* 56–
Other birds** 43–
**shorebirds, herons, etc.
**pheasants, turkeys, etc.
Kathryn Trusten, USDA FS
Avidity
All people identified as birders in this
report said that they took an active
interest in birds — defined as trying to
closely observe or identify different
species. But what is the extent of their
interest? In order to determine their
“avidity” the following factors were
considered: the number of days spent
birdwatching; the number of species
they could identify; and if they kept a
bird life list.
Presumably because of the relative
ease of backyard birding, birders around
the home spent nine times as many
days watching birds as did people who
traveled more than a mile from home to
bird watch. In 2001, the median number
of days for backyard birders was 90 and
for away-from-home birders it was 10.
Although birders are investing a fair
amount of time pursuing their hobby,
most do not appear to have advanced
identification skills. Seventy-four percent
of all birders could identify only between
1 to 20 different types of bird species,
13 percent could identify 21 to 40 birds
and only 8 percent could identify more
than 41 species. Skill levels are higher for
birders who travel from home to bird
watch compared to backyard birders —
10 percent of away-from-home birders
could identify 41 or more birds as
opposed to 6 percent of backyard birders.
Tallies of birds seen during a birder’s
life, sometimes called birding life lists,
were kept by only 5 percent of birders.
This was roughly the same for backyard
birders and away-from-home birders
alike.
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 13
Chart 11. Percent of Around-the-Home Birders Who Can Identify Birds by Sight or Sound
Chart 12. Percent of Away-From-Home Birders Who Can Identify Birds by Sight or Sound
74% 1-20 bird species
21-40 bird species 13%
41 or more bird species 6%
N.A. 7%
67% 1-20 bird species
21-40 bird species 16%
41 or more bird species 10%
N.A. 7%
Avidity Trends
If we can’t say there are more birders
can we say that birders are more
knowledgeable about their hobby than
in the past? In order to gauge birders’
avidity and level of expertise, the 2001
Survey asked birders how many birds
they can identify — a question last
asked in the 1980 Survey* (USFWS).
A comparison of responses show that
skill levels did not change much in that
20 year time period. For both years,
the same percent, 74, was in the
beginner category (1 to 20 species of
birds) and roughly the same percent,
13 and 14, respectively, fell into the
intermediate (21 to 40 birds) level.
A slightly higher percentage of expert
birders, however, (41 or more species)
was found in the 2001 Survey, 8 percent
versus 5 percent in the 1980 Survey.
Yet in another sign that the more
things change the more they stay the
same, almost the same portion, 4 and
5 percent, kept birding life lists.
Table 8. Percent of Birders* Who Can Identify Birds by Sight or Sound and
Who Kept Birding Life Lists: 1980 and 2001 Comparison
1980 2001
1-20 bird species 74% 74%
21-40 bird species 14% 13%
41 or more bird species 5% 8%
Kept bird life list 4% 5%
* In 1980 the question was asked of all wildlife-watchers (formerly called
non-consumptive) and in 2001 the question was asked of only birders.
Measures of Economic Value
Putting a dollar figure on birding can
appear a tricky business. How can dollars
be used to value something as intangible
as the enjoyment of birds and birding?
Looked at from a practical perspective
we live in a world of competing resources
and dollars. Activities such as golfing and
industries such as computer software are
regularly described in terms of jobs
generated and benefits to consumers.
The same economic principles that guide
the measure of golf and software apply
also to birding.
Expenditures by recreationists and net
economic values are two widely used but
distinctly different measures of the
economic value of wildlife-related
recreation. Money spent for binoculars in
a store or a sandwich in a deli on a trip has
a ripple effect on the economy. It supplies
money for salaries and jobs which in turn
generates more sales and more jobs and
tax revenue. This is economic output or
impact, the direct and indirect impact of
birders’ expenditures and an example of
one of two economic values presented in
this paper. Economic impact numbers are
useful indicators of the importance of
birding to the local, regional, and national
economies but do not measure the
economic benefit to an individual or
society because, theoretically,money not
spent on birding (or golf, or software)
would be spent on other activities, be it
fishing or scuba diving. Money is just
transferred from one group to another.
However, from the perspective of a given
community or region, out-of-region
residents spending money for birding
represents real economic wealth.
Another economic concept is birding’s
economic benefit to individuals and
society: the amount that people are
willing to pay over and above what they
actually spend to watch birds. This is
known as net economic value, or
consumer surplus, and is the appropriate
economic measure of the benefit to
individuals from participation in wildlife-related
recreation (Bishop, 1984;
Freeman, 1993; Loomis et al., 1984;
McCollum et al. 1992). The benefit to
society is the summation of willingness to
pay across all individuals.
Net economic value is measured as
participants’ “willingness to pay” above
what they actually spend to participate.
The benefit to society is the summation of
willingness to pay across all individuals.
There is a direct relationship between
expenditures and net economic value, as
shown in Figure 2. A demand curve for a
representative birder is shown in the
figure. The downward sloping demand
curve represents marginal willingness to
pay per trip and indicates that each
additional trip is valued less by the birder
than the preceding trip. All other factors
being equal, the lower the cost per trip
(vertical axis) the more trips the birder
will take (horizontal axis). The cost of a
birding trip serves as an implicit price for
birding since a market price generally
does not exist for this activity. At $60 per
trip, the birder would choose not to watch
birds, but if birding were free, the birder
would take 20 birding trips.
At a cost per trip of $25 the birder takes
10 trips, with a total willingness to pay of
$375 (area acde in Figure 2). Total
willingness to pay is the total value the
birder places on participation. The birder
will not take more than 10 trips because
the cost per trip ($25) exceeds what he
would pay for an additional trip. For each
trip between zero and 10, however, the
birder would actually have been willing to
pay more than $25 (the demand curve,
showing marginal willingness to pay, lies
above $25).
The difference between what the birder
is willing to pay and what is actually paid
is net economic value. In this simple
example, therefore, net economic value is
$125 (($50 – $25) 10 ÷ 2) (triangle bcd in
Figure 2) and birder expenditures are
$250 ($25 × 10) (rectangle abde in Figure
2). Thus, the birder’s total willingness to
pay is composed of net economic value
and total expenditures. Net economic
value is simply total willingness to pay
minus expenditures. The relationship
between net economic value and
14 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
The Economics of Bird Watching
Figure 2. Individual Birder’s Demand Curve for Birding Trips
Cost per Trip ($)
Trips per Year
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 10 15 20 25
b
a e
d
c
Expenditures
Net Economic Value
expenditures is the basis for asserting
that net economic value is an appropriate
measure of the benefit an individual
derives from participation in an activity
and that expenditures are not the
appropriate benefit measure.
Expenditures are out-of-pocket expenses
on items a birder purchases in order to
watch birds. The remaining value, net
willingness to pay (net economic value), is
the economic measure of an individual’s
satisfaction after all costs of participation
have been paid.
Summing the net economic values of all
individuals who participate in an activity
derives the value to society. For our
example let us assume that there are 100
birders who bird watch at a particular
wildlife refuge and all have demand
curves identical to that of our typical
birder presented in Figure 2. The total
value of this wildlife refuge to society is
$12,500 ($125 × 100).
Birders’ Expenditures and
Economic Impact
Birders spent an estimated $32 billion
(see Table 9) on wildlife-watching in 2001.
This estimate includes money spent for
binoculars, field guides, bird food, bird
houses, camping gear, and big-ticket
items such as boats. It also includes
travel-related costs such as food and
transportation costs, guide fees, etc.
When using the numbers in Tables 9 and
10 it is important to know that these
dollar figures represent the money
birders spent for all wildlife-watching
recreation — not just birding. The 2001
Survey collected expenditure data for
people who fed, photographed, or
observed wildlife. Expenditure data was
not collected solely for birding. It is
possible that people who watched birds in
2001 may have spent money on other
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 15
Table 9. Birders’ Expenditures for Wildlife Watching: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Thousands of dollars.)
Expenditure item Expenditures ($)
Total, all items 31,686,673
Trip-Related Expenditures
Total, trip-related 7,409,679
Food 2,646,224
Lodging 1,851,206
Public transportation 682,202
Private transportation 1,790,951
Guide fees, pack trip or package fees 110,374
Private land use fees 48,999
Public land use fees 108,414
Boating costs 135,381
Heating and cooking fuel 35,928
Equipment and Other Expenses
Total, equipment and other expenses 24,276,994
Wildlife-watching equipment, total 6,010,141
Binoculars, spotting scopes 471,264
Cameras, video cameras, special lenses, and other
photographic equipment 1,431,807
Film and developing 837,868
Bird food 2,239,259
Nest boxes, bird houses, feeders, baths 628,060
Daypacks, carrying cases and special clothing 288,648
Other wildlife-watching equipment (such as field guides, and maps) 113,235
Auxiliary equipment, total 523,700
Tents, tarps 163,999
Frame packs and backpacking equipment 121,217
Other camping equipment 238,835
Other auxiliary equipment (such as blinds) 117,267
Special equipment, total 11,158,302
Off-the-road vehicle 5,512,624
Travel or tent trailer, pickup, camper, van, motor home 4,657,752
Boats, boat accessories 946,688
Other 41,238
Magazine 297,780
Land leasing and ownership 4,197,666
Membership dues and contributions 808,101
Plantings 639,986
Facts-at-a-Glance
46 Million Birders
$32 Billion in Retail Sales
$85 Billion in Overall
Economic Output
$13 Billion in State and
Federal Income Taxes
863,406 Jobs Created
types of wildlife-related recreation such
as binoculars for whale-watching or gas
for a moose-watching trip rather than
only bird-watching. Therefore, these
estimates for birding expenditures may
be overestimates.
This $32 billion that birders spent
generated $85 billion in economic benefits
for the nation in 2001. This ripple effect
on the economy also produced $13 billion
in tax revenues and 863,406 jobs. For
details on economic impact estimation
methods see Appendix A.
The sheer magnitude of these numbers
proves that birding is a major economic
force, driving billions in spending around
the county. On a local level, these
economic impacts can be the life-blood of
an economy. Towns such as Cape May,
New Jersey, and Platte River, Nebraska,
attract thousands of birding visitors a
year generating millions of dollars —
money that would likely otherwise be
spent elsewhere.
Estimated Net Economic Values
As stated earlier, the willingness to pay
above what is actually spent for an
activity is known as net economic value.
This number is derived here by using a
survey technique called contingent
valuation (Mitchell and Carson, 1989).
Respondents to the 2001 Survey were
asked a series of contingent valuation
(CV) questions to determine their net
willingness to pay for a wildlife watching
trip. Please note that the data presented
here are net economic values for wildlife
watching trips — not for bird watching
trips solely. However, since the vast
majority of away-from-home wildlife
watchers are birders (84 percent), the
values presented here are acceptable for
use in valuing birding trips. For details
on net economic value estimation
methods please see Appendix A.
As seen in Table 11, the net economic
value per year for a wildlife watcher in
their resident state is $257 per year or
$35 per day. Wildlife watchers who travel
outside their state have a different
demand curve (they generally take fewer
trips and spend more money) and
therefore have their own net economic
values of $488 per year and $134 per day.
When and how can these values be used?
These numbers are appropriate for any
project evaluation that seeks to quantify
benefits and costs. They can be used to
evaluate management decisions (actions)
that increase or decrease participation
rates. In a simple example, if a wildlife
refuge changed its policies and allowed
100 more birders to visit per year, the total
value to society due to this policy change
would be $25,700 ($257 × 100) per year
(assuming all visitors are state residents).
This value, however, assumes that these
100 birders could and would watch birds
only at this refuge and that they would
take a certain number of trips to this
refuge. In a more realistic example, if the
refuge changed its policy and stayed open
two more weeks a year and knew that
100 people visited each day during this
period then the benefit to society could be
estimated by multiplying the number of
people by days (100 × 14) by the average
value per day ($35) for a total of $49,000.
If the refuge had data on the number of
in-state and out-of-state visitors then the
numbers could be adjusted to reflect their
appropriate value.
Net economic values also can be used
to evaluate management actions that
have a negative affect on wildlife
watching. For example, if a wildlife
sanctuary was slated for development
and birders were no longer able to use
the site, and if the sanctuary manger
knew the number of days of birding over
the whole year (e.g, 2,000 days) it is
possible to develop a rough estimate of
the loss from this closure. This estimate
is accomplished by multiplying net
economic value per day ($35) by the days
of participation (2,000) for a value of
$70,000 per year.
Two caveats exist to the examples
above: (1) if bird watchers can shift their
birding to another location then the
values are an over-estimate; and (2) if a
loss of wildlife habitat causes an overall
degradation in the number of birds and
in the quality of birding then the values
are an under-estimate.
16 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
Table 10. Economic Impact of Birders: 2001*
(Population 16 years of age and older.)
Retail Sales (expenditures) $31,686,673,000
Economic Output $84,931,020,000
Salaries and Wages $24,882,676,000
Jobs 863,406
State Income taxes $4,889,380,000
Federal Income taxes $7,703,308,000
* Amount that birders spent on all wildlife watching.
Table 11. Net Economic Values for Wildlife Watching: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older.)
Standard Net economic Standard
Net economic error of 95 percent value per day error of 95 percent
value per year the mean confidence interval of birdwatching the mean confidence interval
State Residents $257 12 $233 – 282 $35 2 $32 – 39
Nonresidents $488 37 $415 – 561 $134 12 $110 – 158
Back in Louisiana, the search for the
ivory-billed woodpecker ended in
disappointment. After an exhaustive two
week search, none were found. Optimism,
however, continues to prevail. In a group
statement the expedition team said they
think the bird may exist based on the
availability of good quality habitat and
other evidence.
This optimism of always looking
hopefully into the next tree is the esprit-de-
corps of birders. As this report shows,
birders come from many walks of life and
watch a variety of birds in different
settings. Their enthusiasm for birding
also translates into spending, thereby
contributing significantly to national and
local economies. The high values birders
place on their birding trips is a solid
indicator of birding’s benefit to society.
While the numbers of birders may not
have grown statistically, the power of a
mobilized birding community and the
willingness of mass media sources and
the general public to give play to birding
issues has an impact felt deeply in the
economy and promotes the sustainability
of bird habitats. Hopefully, the
information in this report will allow
resource managers and policy makers to
make informed management decisions
when birds and birding are involved.
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 17
Conclusion
Grant La Rouche
Bishop, Richard C. 1984. “Economic
Values Defined.” In Valuing Wildlife:
Economic and Social Perspectives, D.F.
Decker and G.R. Goff (eds), Westview
Press, Boulder, CO.
Freeman, A. Myrick. 1993. The
Measurement of Environmental and
Resource Values: Theory and Methods.
Resources for the Future, Washington,
D.C.
Loomis, John B., George L. Peterson, and
Cindy Sorg. 1984. “A Field Guide to
Wildlife Economic Analysis.”
Transactions of the Forty-ninth North
American and Natural Resources
Conferece: 315-324.
Loomis, John B., 2000. “Can
Environmental Economic Valuations
Techniques Aid Ecological Economics
and Wildlife Conservation?” Wildlife
Society Bulletin 28:52-60.
McCollum, Daniel W., George L.
Peterson, and Cindy Swanson. 1992. “A
Managers Guide to Valuation of
Nonmarket Resources: What do you
really want to know?” In Valuing
Wildlife Resources in Alaska, G.L.
Peterson, C.S. Swanson, D.W. McCollum
and M.H. Thomas (eds), and Westview
Press Boulder, CO.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon.
2003. The North American Breeding
Bird Survey, Results and Analysis
1966—2002. Version 2003.1, USGS
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,
Laurel, MD.
Rosen, Jonathan. 2001. “The Ghost Bird.”
In The New Yorker. 5/14/01: 61-67.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. 1980
National Survey of Fishing Hunting
and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Division of Federal
Aid Suite 4020. Arlington, VA 22203.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. 1991
National Survey of Fishing Hunting
and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Division of Federal
Aid Suite 4020. Arlington, VA 22203.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. 1996
National Survey of Fishing Hunting
and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Division of Federal
Aid Suite 4020. Arlington, VA 22203.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. 2001
National Survey of Fishing Hunting
and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Division of Federal
Aid Suite 4020. Arlington, VA 22203.
18 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
References
Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina)
by Steve Maslowski, USFWS
Economic Impact Methods
The 2001 National Survey contains
estimates of annual travel and equipment
expenditures by wildlife-watching
participants. Travel expenditures were
obtained only for away-from-home
participants while equipment
expenditures were obtained for both
around-the-home and away-from-home
wildlife watchers. To obtain the economic
impact figures, these expenditures were
used in conjunction with an economic
modeling method known as input-output
analysis. The estimates of economic
activity, jobs, and employment income
were derived using IMPLAN, a regional
input-output model and software system.
State and federal tax impacts are based
on industry-wide averages for each
industrial sector.
Contingent Valuation Methods
Using expenditure and trip data collected
from respondents earlier in the survey,
respondents were presented with their
average number of wildlife-watching
trips in 2001 and average cost per trip.
If the respondents did not think this
information was accurate they were
allowed to change it to what they thought
was the accurate number of trips and/or
an accurate cost per-trip. The respondent
was then asked how much money would
have been too much to pay per trip. This
question was reiterated in another form
in case there was misunderstanding (the
full series of questions is in Appendix B).
Assuming a linear demand curve, annual
net economic value was then calculated
using the difference between current cost
and the maximum cost at the intercept
and the number of trips taken in 2001.
The valuation sequence was posed in
terms of numbers of trips and cost per
trip because respondents were thought
more likely to think in terms of trips.
The economic values here are reported in
days to facilitate their use in analysis.
Outliers were deleted if respondents
answered in a way that resulted in
zero or negative willingness to pay.
Observations were also dropped from
the sample if the CV responses resulted
in an annual net economic value for an
activity that exceeded 5 percent of an
individual’s household income.
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 19
Appendix A. Methods
Grant La Rouche
RESIDENT STATE
Note: These series of questions were
asked about ALL trips taken for the
PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,
photographing, or feeding wildlife during
the ENTIRE calendar year of 2001 in the
respondent’s state of residence.
You reported taking [X] trips for the
PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,
photographing, or feeding wildlife in
[RESIDENT STATE]. Is that correct?
1—Yes
2—No
[IF NO] How many trips did you take for
the PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,
feeding or photographing wildlife in
[RESIDENT STATE] (from Wave 1)
during 2001?
Zero was allowed as a valid response.
In your current and/or previous
interview(s), you reported that you spent
on average $[X] per trip during 2001
where your PRIMARY PURPOSE was
to observe, photograph, or feed
wildlife in [RESIDENT STATE] . Would
you say that cost is about right?
1—Yes
2—No
[IF NO] How much would you say is the
average cost of your current and/or
previous trip(s) during 2001 where your
PRIMARY PURPOSE was to observe,
photograph, or feed wildlife in [resident
state]? If you went with family or friends,
include ONLY YOUR SHARE of the
cost.
Zero was allowed as a valid response.
What is the most your trip(s) to observe,
photograph, or feed wildlife in
[RESIDENT STATE] could have cost
you per trip last year before you would
NOT have gone at all in 2001, not even
one trip, because it would have been too
expensive? Keep in mind that the cost per
trip of other kinds of recreation would not
have changed.
Zero was allowed as a valid response.
So, in other words, [X] would have been
too much to pay to take even one trip to
observe, photograph, or feed wildlife in
2001 in [RESIDENT STATE] ?
1—Yes
2—No
[IF NO] How much would have been too
much to pay to take even 1 trip to feed,
photograph, or observe wildlife in 2001 in
[RESIDENT STATE] ?
Zero was allowed as a valid response.
RANDOM STATE NOT EQUAL TO
RESIDENT STATE
Note: These series of questions were
asked about ALL trips taken for the
PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,
photographing, or feeding wildlife during
the ENTIRE calendar year of 2001 in a
state other than the respondent’s state of
residence. If the respondent took a trip in
more than one state as a nonresident, one
state was randomly chosen.
You reported taking [X] trip(s) for the
PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,
photographing, or feeding wildlife in
[STATE]. Is that correct?
1—Yes
2—No
[IF NO] How many trips did you take for
the PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,
feeding and photographing wildlife in
[STATE] during 2001?
Zero was allowed as a valid response.
In your current and/or previous
interview(s), you reported that you spent
on average $ [X] per trip during 2001
where your PRIMARY PURPOSE was
to observe, photograph, and feed wildlife
in [STATE]. Would you say that cost is
about right?
1—Yes
2—No
How much would you say was the
average cost of your current and/or
previous trip(s) during 2001 where your
PRIMARY PURPOSE was to observe,
photograph, and feed wildlife in
[STATE]? If you went with family or
friends, include ONLY YOUR SHARE of
the cost.
Zero was allowed as a valid response.
What is the most your trip(s) to observe,
photograph, or feed wildlife in [STATE]
could have cost you per trip last year
before you would NOT have gone at all in
2001, not even one trip, because it would
have been too expensive? Keep in mind
that the cost per trip of other kinds of
recreation would not have changed.
Zero was allowed as a valid response.
So, in other words, [X] is too much to pay
to take even one trip to observe,
photograph, or feed wildlife in 2001 in
[STATE]?
1—Yes
2—No
[IF NO] How much would be too
much to pay to take even 1 trip to feed,
photograph, or observe wildlife in 2001
in [STATE]?
Zero was allowed as a valid response.
20 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
Appendix B. Contingent Valuation Section from the
2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Division of Federal Aid
Washington, DC 20240
http://federalaid.fws.gov
August 2003
Cover photo: Dickcissel (Spiza americana)
by Steve Maslowski, USFWS

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Birding in theUnitedStates:
ADemographicand
EconomicAnalysis
Addendum to the 2001National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-1
Genevieve Pullis La Rouche
Division of Federal Aid
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, D.C.
Division of Federal Aid
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
Director, Steve Williams
Chief, Division of Federal Aid, Kris La Montagne
http://fa.r9.fws.gov/
This report is intended to complement the National and State Reports for the
2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
The report’s opinions are the author’s and do not represent official positions of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The author thanks Sylvia Cabrera, Richard Aiken, Grant La Rouche,
John Charbonneau and Jim Caudill for reviewing earlier drafts of this report.
Birding in theUnitedStates:
ADemographicand
EconomicAnalysis
Addendum to the 2001National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-1
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
Introduction
In January 2002 an unprecedented major
media event unfolded in a Louisiana
swamp. A team of top ornithologists set
out to find the ivory-billed woodpecker, a
bird last seen in the United States in 1943
and, until a recent credible citing by a
turkey hunter, considered extinct in the
U.S. The expedition, funded by a
corporate sponsor, received worldwide
media attention including coverage by
the New York Times, USA Today, and
National Public Radio.
This high-profile search for the ivory-billed
woodpecker is just one indicator of
the growing popularization of birds and
birding. Other evidence abounds. A field
guide, Sibley’s Guide to Birds, became a
New York Times bestseller. And a quick
search of the Internet yields numerous
birding sites, some of which list hundreds
of birding festivals held around the
country each year.
This growing awareness of birding comes
at an odd time; birds are in jeopardy.
According to 35-year trend data (1966-
2001) from the U. S. Geological Service,
almost one-in-four bird species in the
United States show “significant negative
trend estimates” (Sauer et al. 2003).
This decline is attributed primarily to
the degradation and destruction of
habitat resulting from human population
growth and short-sighted environmental
practices such as the razing of wetlands
“For me, the thrill of bird-watching
is catching the glimpse of alien
consciousness—the uninflected,
murderous eye, the aura of reptilian
toughness under the beautiful soft
feathers, the knowledge that if I
were the size of a sparrow, and a
sparrow were as big as I am, it
might ripmyhead off without a
second’s hesitation.”
Jonathan Rosen. The Ghost Bird.
The New Yorker. 5/14/01.
American Kestral (Falco sparverius) by Dave Menke, USFWS
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 3
needed by migratory birds. Although
there is a certain irony in people
becoming enthusiastic about birds
as they disappear, it also presents
an opportunity: birders may be the
economic and political force that can
help save the birds.
The following report provides up-to-date
information so birders and policy makers
can make informed decisions regarding
the protection of birds and their habitats.
This report identifies who birders are,
where they live, how avid they are, where
they bird and what kinds of birds they
watch. In addition to demographic
information, this report also provides two
kinds of economic measures. The first is
an estimate of how much birders spend
on their hobby and the economic impact
of these expenditures. The second is the
net economic value of birding, that is, the
value of birding to society.
By understanding who birders are,
they can be more easily educated about
pressures facing birds and bird habitats.
Conversely, by knowing who is likely not
a birder, or who is potentially a birder,
information can be more effectively
tailored. The economic values presented
here can be used by resource managers
and policy makers to demonstrate the
economic might of birders, the value of
birding — and by extension, the value of
birds. In fact, research shows that these
kinds of values help wildlife managers
make better decisions and illustrate the
value of wildlife to American society
(Loomis 2000).
All data presented here is from the
wildlife-watching section of the 2001
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
(FHWAR). It is the most comprehensive
survey of wildlife recreation in the U.S.
Overall, 15,300 detailed wildlife-watching
interviews were completed with a
response rate of 90 percent. The Survey
focused on 2001 participation and
expenditures by U.S. residents 16 years
of age and older.
Birding Trends
Is birding increasing? Despite recent
popularization (high visibility within
the media and popular culture and
increased recognition of the sport
within American homes) of birding,
past FHWAR Survey results point to a
more complicated story. A comparison
of results from the 1991, 1996, and 2001
estimates show that bird-watching
around the home has decreased rather
than increased over that 10-year period
(USFWS). In 1991, 51.3 million people
reported observing birds around their
homes. In 1996 that number dropped to
42.2 million and in 2001 to 40.3 million.
Because the 2001 Survey is the first
time people were asked if they
specifically watched birds on trips
away from home, it cannot be said
conclusively if this activity increased or
decreased. However, in all three
Surveys, people were asked if they
observed, fed, or photographed birds
away from home. These numbers
indicate a net decrease in away-from-home
birding from 24.7 million in 1991
to 18.5 million in 2001 but a slight
uptick from 1996 (17.7 million) to 2001.
Jim Hudgins, USFWS
In 2001 there were 46 million bird-watchers
or birders, 16 years of age
and older, in the United States ��� a little
over one in five people. What is a birder?
The National Survey uses a conservative
definition. To be counted as a birder, an
individual must have either taken a trip a
mile or more from home for the primary
purpose of observing birds and/or closely
observed or tried to identify birds around
the home. So people who happened to
notice birds while they were mowing the
lawn or picnicking at the beach were not
counted as birders. Trips to zoos and
observing captive birds also did not
count.
Backyard birding or watching birds
around the home is the most common
form of bird-watching. Eighty-eight
percent (40 million) of birders are
backyard birders. The more active
form of birding, taking trips away from
home, is less common with 40 percent
(18 million) of birders partaking.
4 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
Birders
Chart 1. Birders in the United States: 2001
(16 years of age and older.)
Total Birders 46 million
Around-the-home 40 million
Away-from-home 18 million
Red-winged Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) by John and Karen Hollingsworth, USFWS
The average birder is 49 years old and
more than likely has a better than
average income and education. She is
slightly more likely to be female, and
highly likely to be white and married.
There is also a good chance that this
birder lives in the northern half of the
country in a small city or town. Does this
paint an accurate picture of a birder?
Like all generalizations the description of
an “average” birder does not reflect the
variety of people who bird, with millions
falling outside this box. The tables and
charts show in numbers and participation
rates (the percentage of people who
participate) birders by various
demographic breakdowns.
The tendency of birders to be middle-age
or older is reflected in both the number of
birders and participation rates. Looking
at the different age breakdowns in Table 1,
the greatest number of birders were in
the 35 to 44 and 45 to 54 age groups.
People age 55 to 64 had the highest
participation rates while the participation
rate was particularly low for people ages
18 to 24. Birders who take trips away
from home to pursue their hobby were on
average slightly younger at 45 years old
compared to backyard birders who were
on average 50 years old.
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 5
Table 1. Age Distribution of the U.S. Population and Birders: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
U.S. Number Participation
Age Population of Birders Rate
16 and 17 7,709 1,043 14%
18 to 24 22,234 1,894 9%
25 to 34 35,333 5,990 17%
35 to 44 44,057 10,414 24%
45 to 54 40,541 10,541 26%
55 to 64 25,601 7,177 28%
65 plus 36,823 8,893 24%
Chart 2. Birders’ Participation Rate by Age
U.S. Average: 22% ▼
16 and 17 14%
18 to 24 9%–
25 to 34 17%
35 to 44 24%
45 to 54 26%
55 to 64 28%
65 plus 24%
Tina Watson, USFWS
The higher the income and education
level the more likely a person is to be a
birder. Twenty-seven percent of people
who live in households that earn $75,000
or more were bird-watchers — 5 percent
above the national average of 22 percent.
Education, which is often highly
correlated with income, shows the same
trend. People with less than high school
education participated at 14 percent —
far below the national average — while
people with five or more years of college
had the highest participation rate at
33 percent. See Tables 2 and 3 for more
information.
6 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
Table 2. Income Distribution of the U.S. Population and Birders: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
U.S. Number Participation
Income Population of Birders Rate
Less than $10,000 10,594 2,212 21%
$10,000 to $19,000 15,272 2,754 18%
$20,000 to $24,000 10,902 2,335 21%
$25,000 to $29,000 11,217 2,392 21%
$30,000 to $34,000 11,648 2,618 22%
$35,000 to $39,000 9,816 2,005 20%
$40,000 to $49,000 16,896 4,116 24%
$50,000 to $74,000 31,383 7,476 24%
$75,000 to $99,000 17,762 4,771 27%
$100,000 or more 19,202 5,224 27%
Detail does not add to total due to non-response.
Chart 3. Birders’ Participation Rate by Income
U.S. Average: 22% ▼
Less than $10,000 21%
$10,000 to $19,000 18%
$20,000 to $24,000 21%
$25,000 to $29,000 21%
$30,000 to $34,000 22%
$35,000 to $39,000 20%
$40,000 to $49,000 24%
$50,000 to $74,000 24%
$75,000 to $99,000 27%
$100,000 or more 27%
Table 3. Educational Distribution of the U.S. Population and Birders: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
U.S. Number Participation
Population of Birders Rate
11 years or less 32,820 4,627 14%
12 years 73,719 13,933 19%
1 to 3 years college 49,491 11,363 23%
4 years college 34,803 8,922 26%
5 years or more college 21,646 7,107 33%
Chart 4. Birders’ Participation Rate by Education
U.S. Average: 22% ▼
11 years or less 14%
12 years 19%
1 to 3 years college 23%
4 years college 26%
5 years or more college 33%
Unlike hunting and fishing where men
were overwhelmingly in the majority, a
slightly larger percent of birders were
women — 54 percent in 2001. And most
birders, 72 percent, were married.
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 7
Chart 5. Percent of Birders — by Gender
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Chart 6. Percent of Birders — by Marital Status
72% Married
54% Female
Widowed 7%
Divorced/separated 9%
Never married 13%
Male 46%
Tami Heilemann, DOI
Excepting Native American participation,
birders are not a racially or ethnically
diverse group. Ninety-four percent of
birders identified themselves as white.
The scarcity of minority birders is not
just a reflection of their relatively low
numbers in the population at large, it’s
also a function of low participation rates.
The participation rates of African-
Americans, Asians, and Hispanics were
all 9 percent or lower while the rate for
whites, 24 percent, was slightly above the
22 percent national average. Native
Americans on the other hand had a
participation rate (22 percent) on par
with the national average.
The sparser populated an area, the more
likely its residents were to watch birds.
The participation rate for people living in
small cities and rural areas was 28
percent — 6 percent above the national
average. Whereas large metropolitan
areas (1 million residents or more) had
the greatest number of birders, their
residents had the lowest participation
rate, 18 percent. See Table 5.
8 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
Table 4. Racial and Ethnic Distribution of the U.S. Population and Birders: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
U.S. Number Participation
Population of Birders Rate
Hispanic 21,910 1,880 9%
White 181,129 43,026 24%
African American 21,708 1,243 6%
Native American 1,486 321 22%
Asian 7,141 436 6%
Other 833 55 7%
Chart 7. Birders’ Participation Rate by Race and Ethnicity
U.S. Average: 22% ▼
Hispanic 9%–
White 24%
African American 6%–
Native American 22%
Asian 6%–
Other 7%–
Table 5. Percent of U.S. Population Who Birded by Residence: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Metropolitan U.S. Number Participation
Statistical Area (MSA) Population of Birders Rate
1,000,000 or more 112,984 20,868 18%
250,000 to 999,999 41,469 8,991 22%
50,000 to 249,000 16,693 4,622 28%
Outside MSA 41,151 11,470 28%
Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotaria citrea) by
John and Karen Hollingsworth, USFWS
When measured in terms of the percent
of state residents participating, states in
the northern half of the United States
generally had higher levels of
participation than did states in the
southern half. While 44 percent of
Montanans and 43 percent of Vermonters
watched birds, only 14 percent of
Californians and Texans did. See Chart 8.
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 9
Chart 8. Birding Participation Rates by State Residents: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older)
U.S. Average: 22% ▼
Montana 44%
Vermont 43%
Wisconsin 41%
Washington 36%
Minnesota 36%
Maine 36%
Alaska 36%
Kentucky 35%
Oregon 35%
New Hampshire 34%
Wyoming 34%
Iowa 34%
South Dakota 33%
Idaho 29%
Indiana 29%
New Mexico 28%
Virginia 28%
Utah 27%
Oklahoma 27%
Pennsylvania 27%
Missouri 26%
Colorado 25%
Tennessee 25%
Nebraska 25%
Connecticut 25%
West Virginia 24%
Arkansas 24%
Kansas 24%
Michigan 23%
Maryland 22%
Arizona 22%
Massachusetts 22%
South Carolina 20%
Ohio 20%
Rhode Island 19%
North Carolina 18%
Illinois 18%
New Jersey 18%
Delaware 18%
Mississippi 18%
Alabama 18%
North Dakota 17%
New York 17%
Florida 16%
Louisiana 16%
Georgia 15%
Nevada 15%
Texas 14%
California 14%
Hawaii 9%–
Jim Hudgins, USFWS
The participation rate was highest (30%)
in the West North Central region of the
United States (see Figure 1). The New
England states had the second highest
participation rate at 27 percent with a
close third going to the Rocky Mountain
states (26 percent). The West South
Central states had the lowest rate of
17 percent while the Pacific and South
Atlantic states yielded slightly higher
rates, both 19 percent. However, in terms
of sheer numbers, the Pacific and South
Atlantic states had the most resident
birders — 7 million and 8 million
respectively, while New England had
the least, 3 million.
10 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
Figure 1. Birders’ Participation Rates by Region of Residence: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
West
Mountain
26%
West
North Central
30%
West
South
Central
17%
East
South
Central
22%
South
Atlantic
19%
East
North Central
24%
Middle
Atlantic
21%
New
England
27%
Pacific
19%
Midwest
South
Northeast
Alaska
Washington
Idaho
Oregon
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Utah
Arizona
New Mexico
Colorado
Wyoming
Montana
North
Dakota Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin
Ohio
Kentucky
Virginia
Tennessee
Georgia
Illinois
Missouri
South
Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma Arkansas
Texas
Alabama
Indiana
Louisiana
Mississippi
South
Carolina
North Carolina
Florida
West Virginia
Delaware
New Jersey
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Vermont
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Maine
New York
Michigan
U.S. 22%
Bird watching by state residents tells
only part of the story. Many people travel
out-of-state to watch birds and some
states are natural birding destinations.
Wyoming reaped the benefits of this
tourism with a whopping 67 percent of
their total birders coming from other
states. The scenic northern states of
New Hampshire, Vermont, Montana,
and Alaska also attracted many
birders — all had more than 40 percent
of their total birders coming from
other states.
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 11
Table 6. Birding by State Residents and Nonresidents: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Total Percent Percent
State Birders State Residents Nonresidents
Alabama 703 90 10
Alaska 321 51 49
Arizona 1,168 70 30
Arkansas 548 88 12
California 3,987 91 9
Colorado 1,077 74 26
Connecticut 732 88 12
Delaware 172 63 37
Florida 2,363 80 20
Georgia 1,063 84 16
Hawaii 164 48 52
Idaho 478 60 40
Illinois 1,815 90 10
Indiana 1,423 94 6
Iowa 813 93 7
Kansas 569 87 13
Kentucky 803 91 9
Louisiana 608 86 14
Maine 595 61 39
Maryland 1,068 82 18
Massachusetts 1,263 86 14
Michigan 1,961 88 12
Minnesota 1,471 90 10
Mississippi 437 88 12
Missouri 1,299 85 15
Montana 558 55 45
Nebraska 386 83 17
Nevada 343 63 37
New Hampshire 569 57 43
New Jersey 1,335 85 15
New Mexico 531 70 30
New York 2,802 88 12
North Carolina 1,296 80 20
North Dakota 134 60 40
Ohio 1,899 93 7
Oklahoma 760 91 9
Oregon 1,187 77 23
Pennsylvania 2,721 91 10
Rhode Island 193 76 25
South Carolina 742 84 16
South Dakota 271 68 32
Tennessee 1,420 76 24
Texas 2,268 94 6
Utah 616 67 33
Vermont 383 53 47
Virginia 1,818 86 14
Washington 1,877 86 14
West Virginia 428 80 20
Wisconsin 1,944 86 14
Wyoming 388 33 67
Where and What Are They Watching?
Backyard birding is the most prevalent
form of birding with 88 percent of
participants watching birds from the
comfort of their homes. Forty percent of
birders travel more than a mile from
home to bird, visiting a variety of habitats
on both private and public lands.
Of the 18 million Americans who ventured
away from home to watch birds, public
land rather than private land was visited
more frequently, although many visited
both. Eighty-three percent of birders
used public land such as parks and
wildlife refuges, 42 percent used private
land, and 31 percent visited both. See
Chart 9.
The most popular setting to observe
birds was in the woods (73%), followed by
lakes and streamside areas (69%) and
brush-covered areas and fields (62% and
61%). Less popular sites were the ocean
(27%) and manmade areas (31%) such as
golf courses and cemeteries. See Table 7.
What kinds of birds are they looking at?
Seventy-eight percent reported
observing waterfowl, making them the
most spied on type of bird. Songbirds
were also popular with 70 percent of
birders watching them, followed in
popularity by birds of prey (68%) and
other water birds such as herons and
shorebirds (56%). See Chart 10.
12 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
Table 7. Sites Visited by Away-From-Home Birders: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Number
of Birders Percent
Total, all birders 18,342 100
Woodland 13,405 73
Lake and Streamside 12,615 69
Brush-covered areas 11,324 62
Open field 11,184 61
Marsh, wetland, swamp 8,632 47
Man-made area 5,770 31
Oceanside 4,921 27
Other 2,418 13
* Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses.
Chart 9. Percent of Away-From-Home Birders — by Public and Private Land Visited
Total, all birders 100
Private Land 42–
Public Land 83–
Both Public and Private 31–
Chart 10. Percent of Away-From-Home Birders — by Type of Birds Observed
Total, all birders 100
Waterfowl 78–
Songbirds 70–
Birds of prey 68–
Other water birds* 56–
Other birds** 43–
**shorebirds, herons, etc.
**pheasants, turkeys, etc.
Kathryn Trusten, USDA FS
Avidity
All people identified as birders in this
report said that they took an active
interest in birds — defined as trying to
closely observe or identify different
species. But what is the extent of their
interest? In order to determine their
“avidity” the following factors were
considered: the number of days spent
birdwatching; the number of species
they could identify; and if they kept a
bird life list.
Presumably because of the relative
ease of backyard birding, birders around
the home spent nine times as many
days watching birds as did people who
traveled more than a mile from home to
bird watch. In 2001, the median number
of days for backyard birders was 90 and
for away-from-home birders it was 10.
Although birders are investing a fair
amount of time pursuing their hobby,
most do not appear to have advanced
identification skills. Seventy-four percent
of all birders could identify only between
1 to 20 different types of bird species,
13 percent could identify 21 to 40 birds
and only 8 percent could identify more
than 41 species. Skill levels are higher for
birders who travel from home to bird
watch compared to backyard birders —
10 percent of away-from-home birders
could identify 41 or more birds as
opposed to 6 percent of backyard birders.
Tallies of birds seen during a birder’s
life, sometimes called birding life lists,
were kept by only 5 percent of birders.
This was roughly the same for backyard
birders and away-from-home birders
alike.
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 13
Chart 11. Percent of Around-the-Home Birders Who Can Identify Birds by Sight or Sound
Chart 12. Percent of Away-From-Home Birders Who Can Identify Birds by Sight or Sound
74% 1-20 bird species
21-40 bird species 13%
41 or more bird species 6%
N.A. 7%
67% 1-20 bird species
21-40 bird species 16%
41 or more bird species 10%
N.A. 7%
Avidity Trends
If we can’t say there are more birders
can we say that birders are more
knowledgeable about their hobby than
in the past? In order to gauge birders’
avidity and level of expertise, the 2001
Survey asked birders how many birds
they can identify — a question last
asked in the 1980 Survey* (USFWS).
A comparison of responses show that
skill levels did not change much in that
20 year time period. For both years,
the same percent, 74, was in the
beginner category (1 to 20 species of
birds) and roughly the same percent,
13 and 14, respectively, fell into the
intermediate (21 to 40 birds) level.
A slightly higher percentage of expert
birders, however, (41 or more species)
was found in the 2001 Survey, 8 percent
versus 5 percent in the 1980 Survey.
Yet in another sign that the more
things change the more they stay the
same, almost the same portion, 4 and
5 percent, kept birding life lists.
Table 8. Percent of Birders* Who Can Identify Birds by Sight or Sound and
Who Kept Birding Life Lists: 1980 and 2001 Comparison
1980 2001
1-20 bird species 74% 74%
21-40 bird species 14% 13%
41 or more bird species 5% 8%
Kept bird life list 4% 5%
* In 1980 the question was asked of all wildlife-watchers (formerly called
non-consumptive) and in 2001 the question was asked of only birders.
Measures of Economic Value
Putting a dollar figure on birding can
appear a tricky business. How can dollars
be used to value something as intangible
as the enjoyment of birds and birding?
Looked at from a practical perspective
we live in a world of competing resources
and dollars. Activities such as golfing and
industries such as computer software are
regularly described in terms of jobs
generated and benefits to consumers.
The same economic principles that guide
the measure of golf and software apply
also to birding.
Expenditures by recreationists and net
economic values are two widely used but
distinctly different measures of the
economic value of wildlife-related
recreation. Money spent for binoculars in
a store or a sandwich in a deli on a trip has
a ripple effect on the economy. It supplies
money for salaries and jobs which in turn
generates more sales and more jobs and
tax revenue. This is economic output or
impact, the direct and indirect impact of
birders’ expenditures and an example of
one of two economic values presented in
this paper. Economic impact numbers are
useful indicators of the importance of
birding to the local, regional, and national
economies but do not measure the
economic benefit to an individual or
society because, theoretically,money not
spent on birding (or golf, or software)
would be spent on other activities, be it
fishing or scuba diving. Money is just
transferred from one group to another.
However, from the perspective of a given
community or region, out-of-region
residents spending money for birding
represents real economic wealth.
Another economic concept is birding’s
economic benefit to individuals and
society: the amount that people are
willing to pay over and above what they
actually spend to watch birds. This is
known as net economic value, or
consumer surplus, and is the appropriate
economic measure of the benefit to
individuals from participation in wildlife-related
recreation (Bishop, 1984;
Freeman, 1993; Loomis et al., 1984;
McCollum et al. 1992). The benefit to
society is the summation of willingness to
pay across all individuals.
Net economic value is measured as
participants’ “willingness to pay” above
what they actually spend to participate.
The benefit to society is the summation of
willingness to pay across all individuals.
There is a direct relationship between
expenditures and net economic value, as
shown in Figure 2. A demand curve for a
representative birder is shown in the
figure. The downward sloping demand
curve represents marginal willingness to
pay per trip and indicates that each
additional trip is valued less by the birder
than the preceding trip. All other factors
being equal, the lower the cost per trip
(vertical axis) the more trips the birder
will take (horizontal axis). The cost of a
birding trip serves as an implicit price for
birding since a market price generally
does not exist for this activity. At $60 per
trip, the birder would choose not to watch
birds, but if birding were free, the birder
would take 20 birding trips.
At a cost per trip of $25 the birder takes
10 trips, with a total willingness to pay of
$375 (area acde in Figure 2). Total
willingness to pay is the total value the
birder places on participation. The birder
will not take more than 10 trips because
the cost per trip ($25) exceeds what he
would pay for an additional trip. For each
trip between zero and 10, however, the
birder would actually have been willing to
pay more than $25 (the demand curve,
showing marginal willingness to pay, lies
above $25).
The difference between what the birder
is willing to pay and what is actually paid
is net economic value. In this simple
example, therefore, net economic value is
$125 (($50 – $25) 10 ÷ 2) (triangle bcd in
Figure 2) and birder expenditures are
$250 ($25 × 10) (rectangle abde in Figure
2). Thus, the birder’s total willingness to
pay is composed of net economic value
and total expenditures. Net economic
value is simply total willingness to pay
minus expenditures. The relationship
between net economic value and
14 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
The Economics of Bird Watching
Figure 2. Individual Birder’s Demand Curve for Birding Trips
Cost per Trip ($)
Trips per Year
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 10 15 20 25
b
a e
d
c
Expenditures
Net Economic Value
expenditures is the basis for asserting
that net economic value is an appropriate
measure of the benefit an individual
derives from participation in an activity
and that expenditures are not the
appropriate benefit measure.
Expenditures are out-of-pocket expenses
on items a birder purchases in order to
watch birds. The remaining value, net
willingness to pay (net economic value), is
the economic measure of an individual’s
satisfaction after all costs of participation
have been paid.
Summing the net economic values of all
individuals who participate in an activity
derives the value to society. For our
example let us assume that there are 100
birders who bird watch at a particular
wildlife refuge and all have demand
curves identical to that of our typical
birder presented in Figure 2. The total
value of this wildlife refuge to society is
$12,500 ($125 × 100).
Birders’ Expenditures and
Economic Impact
Birders spent an estimated $32 billion
(see Table 9) on wildlife-watching in 2001.
This estimate includes money spent for
binoculars, field guides, bird food, bird
houses, camping gear, and big-ticket
items such as boats. It also includes
travel-related costs such as food and
transportation costs, guide fees, etc.
When using the numbers in Tables 9 and
10 it is important to know that these
dollar figures represent the money
birders spent for all wildlife-watching
recreation — not just birding. The 2001
Survey collected expenditure data for
people who fed, photographed, or
observed wildlife. Expenditure data was
not collected solely for birding. It is
possible that people who watched birds in
2001 may have spent money on other
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 15
Table 9. Birders’ Expenditures for Wildlife Watching: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Thousands of dollars.)
Expenditure item Expenditures ($)
Total, all items 31,686,673
Trip-Related Expenditures
Total, trip-related 7,409,679
Food 2,646,224
Lodging 1,851,206
Public transportation 682,202
Private transportation 1,790,951
Guide fees, pack trip or package fees 110,374
Private land use fees 48,999
Public land use fees 108,414
Boating costs 135,381
Heating and cooking fuel 35,928
Equipment and Other Expenses
Total, equipment and other expenses 24,276,994
Wildlife-watching equipment, total 6,010,141
Binoculars, spotting scopes 471,264
Cameras, video cameras, special lenses, and other
photographic equipment 1,431,807
Film and developing 837,868
Bird food 2,239,259
Nest boxes, bird houses, feeders, baths 628,060
Daypacks, carrying cases and special clothing 288,648
Other wildlife-watching equipment (such as field guides, and maps) 113,235
Auxiliary equipment, total 523,700
Tents, tarps 163,999
Frame packs and backpacking equipment 121,217
Other camping equipment 238,835
Other auxiliary equipment (such as blinds) 117,267
Special equipment, total 11,158,302
Off-the-road vehicle 5,512,624
Travel or tent trailer, pickup, camper, van, motor home 4,657,752
Boats, boat accessories 946,688
Other 41,238
Magazine 297,780
Land leasing and ownership 4,197,666
Membership dues and contributions 808,101
Plantings 639,986
Facts-at-a-Glance
46 Million Birders
$32 Billion in Retail Sales
$85 Billion in Overall
Economic Output
$13 Billion in State and
Federal Income Taxes
863,406 Jobs Created
types of wildlife-related recreation such
as binoculars for whale-watching or gas
for a moose-watching trip rather than
only bird-watching. Therefore, these
estimates for birding expenditures may
be overestimates.
This $32 billion that birders spent
generated $85 billion in economic benefits
for the nation in 2001. This ripple effect
on the economy also produced $13 billion
in tax revenues and 863,406 jobs. For
details on economic impact estimation
methods see Appendix A.
The sheer magnitude of these numbers
proves that birding is a major economic
force, driving billions in spending around
the county. On a local level, these
economic impacts can be the life-blood of
an economy. Towns such as Cape May,
New Jersey, and Platte River, Nebraska,
attract thousands of birding visitors a
year generating millions of dollars —
money that would likely otherwise be
spent elsewhere.
Estimated Net Economic Values
As stated earlier, the willingness to pay
above what is actually spent for an
activity is known as net economic value.
This number is derived here by using a
survey technique called contingent
valuation (Mitchell and Carson, 1989).
Respondents to the 2001 Survey were
asked a series of contingent valuation
(CV) questions to determine their net
willingness to pay for a wildlife watching
trip. Please note that the data presented
here are net economic values for wildlife
watching trips — not for bird watching
trips solely. However, since the vast
majority of away-from-home wildlife
watchers are birders (84 percent), the
values presented here are acceptable for
use in valuing birding trips. For details
on net economic value estimation
methods please see Appendix A.
As seen in Table 11, the net economic
value per year for a wildlife watcher in
their resident state is $257 per year or
$35 per day. Wildlife watchers who travel
outside their state have a different
demand curve (they generally take fewer
trips and spend more money) and
therefore have their own net economic
values of $488 per year and $134 per day.
When and how can these values be used?
These numbers are appropriate for any
project evaluation that seeks to quantify
benefits and costs. They can be used to
evaluate management decisions (actions)
that increase or decrease participation
rates. In a simple example, if a wildlife
refuge changed its policies and allowed
100 more birders to visit per year, the total
value to society due to this policy change
would be $25,700 ($257 × 100) per year
(assuming all visitors are state residents).
This value, however, assumes that these
100 birders could and would watch birds
only at this refuge and that they would
take a certain number of trips to this
refuge. In a more realistic example, if the
refuge changed its policy and stayed open
two more weeks a year and knew that
100 people visited each day during this
period then the benefit to society could be
estimated by multiplying the number of
people by days (100 × 14) by the average
value per day ($35) for a total of $49,000.
If the refuge had data on the number of
in-state and out-of-state visitors then the
numbers could be adjusted to reflect their
appropriate value.
Net economic values also can be used
to evaluate management actions that
have a negative affect on wildlife
watching. For example, if a wildlife
sanctuary was slated for development
and birders were no longer able to use
the site, and if the sanctuary manger
knew the number of days of birding over
the whole year (e.g, 2,000 days) it is
possible to develop a rough estimate of
the loss from this closure. This estimate
is accomplished by multiplying net
economic value per day ($35) by the days
of participation (2,000) for a value of
$70,000 per year.
Two caveats exist to the examples
above: (1) if bird watchers can shift their
birding to another location then the
values are an over-estimate; and (2) if a
loss of wildlife habitat causes an overall
degradation in the number of birds and
in the quality of birding then the values
are an under-estimate.
16 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
Table 10. Economic Impact of Birders: 2001*
(Population 16 years of age and older.)
Retail Sales (expenditures) $31,686,673,000
Economic Output $84,931,020,000
Salaries and Wages $24,882,676,000
Jobs 863,406
State Income taxes $4,889,380,000
Federal Income taxes $7,703,308,000
* Amount that birders spent on all wildlife watching.
Table 11. Net Economic Values for Wildlife Watching: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older.)
Standard Net economic Standard
Net economic error of 95 percent value per day error of 95 percent
value per year the mean confidence interval of birdwatching the mean confidence interval
State Residents $257 12 $233 – 282 $35 2 $32 – 39
Nonresidents $488 37 $415 – 561 $134 12 $110 – 158
Back in Louisiana, the search for the
ivory-billed woodpecker ended in
disappointment. After an exhaustive two
week search, none were found. Optimism,
however, continues to prevail. In a group
statement the expedition team said they
think the bird may exist based on the
availability of good quality habitat and
other evidence.
This optimism of always looking
hopefully into the next tree is the esprit-de-
corps of birders. As this report shows,
birders come from many walks of life and
watch a variety of birds in different
settings. Their enthusiasm for birding
also translates into spending, thereby
contributing significantly to national and
local economies. The high values birders
place on their birding trips is a solid
indicator of birding’s benefit to society.
While the numbers of birders may not
have grown statistically, the power of a
mobilized birding community and the
willingness of mass media sources and
the general public to give play to birding
issues has an impact felt deeply in the
economy and promotes the sustainability
of bird habitats. Hopefully, the
information in this report will allow
resource managers and policy makers to
make informed management decisions
when birds and birding are involved.
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 17
Conclusion
Grant La Rouche
Bishop, Richard C. 1984. “Economic
Values Defined.” In Valuing Wildlife:
Economic and Social Perspectives, D.F.
Decker and G.R. Goff (eds), Westview
Press, Boulder, CO.
Freeman, A. Myrick. 1993. The
Measurement of Environmental and
Resource Values: Theory and Methods.
Resources for the Future, Washington,
D.C.
Loomis, John B., George L. Peterson, and
Cindy Sorg. 1984. “A Field Guide to
Wildlife Economic Analysis.”
Transactions of the Forty-ninth North
American and Natural Resources
Conferece: 315-324.
Loomis, John B., 2000. “Can
Environmental Economic Valuations
Techniques Aid Ecological Economics
and Wildlife Conservation?” Wildlife
Society Bulletin 28:52-60.
McCollum, Daniel W., George L.
Peterson, and Cindy Swanson. 1992. “A
Managers Guide to Valuation of
Nonmarket Resources: What do you
really want to know?” In Valuing
Wildlife Resources in Alaska, G.L.
Peterson, C.S. Swanson, D.W. McCollum
and M.H. Thomas (eds), and Westview
Press Boulder, CO.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon.
2003. The North American Breeding
Bird Survey, Results and Analysis
1966—2002. Version 2003.1, USGS
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,
Laurel, MD.
Rosen, Jonathan. 2001. “The Ghost Bird.”
In The New Yorker. 5/14/01: 61-67.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. 1980
National Survey of Fishing Hunting
and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Division of Federal
Aid Suite 4020. Arlington, VA 22203.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. 1991
National Survey of Fishing Hunting
and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Division of Federal
Aid Suite 4020. Arlington, VA 22203.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. 1996
National Survey of Fishing Hunting
and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Division of Federal
Aid Suite 4020. Arlington, VA 22203.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. 2001
National Survey of Fishing Hunting
and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Division of Federal
Aid Suite 4020. Arlington, VA 22203.
18 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
References
Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina)
by Steve Maslowski, USFWS
Economic Impact Methods
The 2001 National Survey contains
estimates of annual travel and equipment
expenditures by wildlife-watching
participants. Travel expenditures were
obtained only for away-from-home
participants while equipment
expenditures were obtained for both
around-the-home and away-from-home
wildlife watchers. To obtain the economic
impact figures, these expenditures were
used in conjunction with an economic
modeling method known as input-output
analysis. The estimates of economic
activity, jobs, and employment income
were derived using IMPLAN, a regional
input-output model and software system.
State and federal tax impacts are based
on industry-wide averages for each
industrial sector.
Contingent Valuation Methods
Using expenditure and trip data collected
from respondents earlier in the survey,
respondents were presented with their
average number of wildlife-watching
trips in 2001 and average cost per trip.
If the respondents did not think this
information was accurate they were
allowed to change it to what they thought
was the accurate number of trips and/or
an accurate cost per-trip. The respondent
was then asked how much money would
have been too much to pay per trip. This
question was reiterated in another form
in case there was misunderstanding (the
full series of questions is in Appendix B).
Assuming a linear demand curve, annual
net economic value was then calculated
using the difference between current cost
and the maximum cost at the intercept
and the number of trips taken in 2001.
The valuation sequence was posed in
terms of numbers of trips and cost per
trip because respondents were thought
more likely to think in terms of trips.
The economic values here are reported in
days to facilitate their use in analysis.
Outliers were deleted if respondents
answered in a way that resulted in
zero or negative willingness to pay.
Observations were also dropped from
the sample if the CV responses resulted
in an annual net economic value for an
activity that exceeded 5 percent of an
individual’s household income.
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 19
Appendix A. Methods
Grant La Rouche
RESIDENT STATE
Note: These series of questions were
asked about ALL trips taken for the
PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,
photographing, or feeding wildlife during
the ENTIRE calendar year of 2001 in the
respondent’s state of residence.
You reported taking [X] trips for the
PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,
photographing, or feeding wildlife in
[RESIDENT STATE]. Is that correct?
1—Yes
2—No
[IF NO] How many trips did you take for
the PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,
feeding or photographing wildlife in
[RESIDENT STATE] (from Wave 1)
during 2001?
Zero was allowed as a valid response.
In your current and/or previous
interview(s), you reported that you spent
on average $[X] per trip during 2001
where your PRIMARY PURPOSE was
to observe, photograph, or feed
wildlife in [RESIDENT STATE] . Would
you say that cost is about right?
1—Yes
2—No
[IF NO] How much would you say is the
average cost of your current and/or
previous trip(s) during 2001 where your
PRIMARY PURPOSE was to observe,
photograph, or feed wildlife in [resident
state]? If you went with family or friends,
include ONLY YOUR SHARE of the
cost.
Zero was allowed as a valid response.
What is the most your trip(s) to observe,
photograph, or feed wildlife in
[RESIDENT STATE] could have cost
you per trip last year before you would
NOT have gone at all in 2001, not even
one trip, because it would have been too
expensive? Keep in mind that the cost per
trip of other kinds of recreation would not
have changed.
Zero was allowed as a valid response.
So, in other words, [X] would have been
too much to pay to take even one trip to
observe, photograph, or feed wildlife in
2001 in [RESIDENT STATE] ?
1—Yes
2—No
[IF NO] How much would have been too
much to pay to take even 1 trip to feed,
photograph, or observe wildlife in 2001 in
[RESIDENT STATE] ?
Zero was allowed as a valid response.
RANDOM STATE NOT EQUAL TO
RESIDENT STATE
Note: These series of questions were
asked about ALL trips taken for the
PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,
photographing, or feeding wildlife during
the ENTIRE calendar year of 2001 in a
state other than the respondent’s state of
residence. If the respondent took a trip in
more than one state as a nonresident, one
state was randomly chosen.
You reported taking [X] trip(s) for the
PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,
photographing, or feeding wildlife in
[STATE]. Is that correct?
1—Yes
2—No
[IF NO] How many trips did you take for
the PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,
feeding and photographing wildlife in
[STATE] during 2001?
Zero was allowed as a valid response.
In your current and/or previous
interview(s), you reported that you spent
on average $ [X] per trip during 2001
where your PRIMARY PURPOSE was
to observe, photograph, and feed wildlife
in [STATE]. Would you say that cost is
about right?
1—Yes
2—No
How much would you say was the
average cost of your current and/or
previous trip(s) during 2001 where your
PRIMARY PURPOSE was to observe,
photograph, and feed wildlife in
[STATE]? If you went with family or
friends, include ONLY YOUR SHARE of
the cost.
Zero was allowed as a valid response.
What is the most your trip(s) to observe,
photograph, or feed wildlife in [STATE]
could have cost you per trip last year
before you would NOT have gone at all in
2001, not even one trip, because it would
have been too expensive? Keep in mind
that the cost per trip of other kinds of
recreation would not have changed.
Zero was allowed as a valid response.
So, in other words, [X] is too much to pay
to take even one trip to observe,
photograph, or feed wildlife in 2001 in
[STATE]?
1—Yes
2—No
[IF NO] How much would be too
much to pay to take even 1 trip to feed,
photograph, or observe wildlife in 2001
in [STATE]?
Zero was allowed as a valid response.
20 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis
Appendix B. Contingent Valuation Section from the
2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Division of Federal Aid
Washington, DC 20240
http://federalaid.fws.gov
August 2003
Cover photo: Dickcissel (Spiza americana)
by Steve Maslowski, USFWS